United States v. Ford

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE F. FORD, Defendant.

WILLIE F. FORD, Plaintiff, v. STEVE LANGFORD, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 10-20129-07-KHV

CIVIL ACTION No. 18-3156-KHV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

February 22, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On January 23, 2012, the Court sentenced defendant to 420 months in prison. On June 4, 2018, the Court dismissed defendant's pro se Motion To Modify Term Of Imprisonment Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Citing Amendment 750 And Amendment 782 To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. #971) filed May 10, 2018. This matter is before the Court on defendant's Motion To Reconsider [The Order Of June 4, 2018] (Doc. #975) filed June 22, 2018 and defendant's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241) (Doc. #977) filed June 12, 2018, which the Court construes as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules defendant's motion to reconsider the ruling on his Section 3582(c)(2) motion, dismisses his successive Section 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction and denies a certificate of appealability.

Factual Background

On July 27, 2011, a grand jury charged defendant and 11 others with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 280 grams of cocaine base. See Second Superseding Indictment (Doc. #514), Count 1. The grand jury also charged defendant with conspiracy to maintain a drug-involved premises within 1000 feet of a school, possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a school and use of a cell phone in facilitating a drug felony. See id., Counts 4, 5, 12.

The Tenth Circuit summarized the trial testimony as follows:

Ford and others used three houses in Kansas City, Kansas, for selling and storing drugs. The main drug house, located at 2632 North 20th Street, known as "the Spot," sold drugs day and night. Drugs were also sold from two other houses near the Spot. In addition to the three houses used for selling drugs, Ford regularly stored drugs intended for sale at the Spot at his parents' house nearby. He brought drugs from his parents' house to the Spot numerous times at coconspirator Andrew Price's request.

Following an extensive investigation of the drug trafficking operation, on October 13, 2010, law-enforcement officials made coordinated arrests of the participants and searches of the houses used for selling drugs. As FBI agents entered the Spot, several coconspirators ran out the back door. Two of them carried firearms and three carried large amounts of cash. Ford was not among those arrested at the Spot. A search of the Spot produced video cameras and a monitor, 27.8 grams of crack, 79.8 grams of marijuana, an electronic scale, packaging materials, and cell phones. Searches of the other drug houses also produced large amounts of cocaine and crack.

Ford was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiring to distribute and distributing cocaine and crack between August 29, 2007 and October 13, 2010, and other charges. He was indicted with seventeen others, and stood trial with codefendants Marcus L. Quinn and Mark A. Brooks pursuant to a second superseding indictment. Four other codefendants entered guilty pleas and testified at the trial: LaVaughn "Jason" Brown, Polly Smith, Adrian Melendez, and Daniel Cardenas Garcia.

The testimony of Brown and Smith established that the persons permitted to sell drugs from the Spot were part of an "inner circle" that included Ford. Although Antonio Quinn was the main person who decided who could sell from the Spot, all members of the inner circle had some say in the matter. Brown testified that the inner-circle members were "all the same," meaning a buyer could get drugs fromhim or any of the others. R. Vol. 2 at 864-65. The inner circle contributed to pay the bills at the Spot. Some members of the conspiracy had regular jobs, but Ford did not.

Several witnesses placed Ford at the Spot on a regular, if not constant, basis. One witness testified that she had purchased crack from him more than 25 times. Several controlled drug buys were completed at the Spot; one of them from Ford. The government's evidence included transcripts of numerous telephone calls between coconspirators recorded from wire intercepts on [Antonio] Quinn's telephone. During calls between [Antonio] Quinn and Ford, the two discussed other conspirators and the drug business. In particular, they used the conspiracy's code words, such as "two-door" and "four-door," to describe drug quantities. During one call, Ford advised [Antonio] Quinn that the "kick-in boys [meaning SWAT teams] have been riding," id. at 1276, and [Antonio] Quinn asked who was "up there," to which Ford responded by naming two other coconspirators[] id. Furthermore, other coconspirators referred to Ford in phone calls discussing the drug trafficking organization.

Testifying coconspirator Adrian Melendez stated that he supplied cocaine to [Antonio] Quinn. He had observed [Antonio] Quinn hand to Ford cocaine that he had supplied to Quinn. Melendez saw [Antonio] Quinn give Ford cocaine "six, seven times." Id. at 1935. In addition, coconspirator Daniel Cardenas Garcia testified that [Antonio] Quinn told him that he supplied Ford cocaine, and that [Antonio] Quinn sometimes delayed paying Garcia because he was awaiting payment from others, including Ford, before paying Garcia.

Order And Judgment (Doc. #836) filed May 20, 2013 at 2-4 (footnote omitted).

On August 26, 2011, a jury found defendant guilty on each count. See Verdict (Doc. #572). Defendant's total offense level was 42 with a criminal history category VI, resulting in a sentencing range of 360 months to life in prison. On January 23, 2012, the Court sentenced defendant to 420 months in prison. See Judgment In A Criminal Case (Doc. #691). Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. On May 20, 2013, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Order And Judgment (Doc. #836) at 2.

On June 6, 2014, defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence under Section 2255. Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #849). Defendant alleged ineffective assistance because (1) counsel did not object to the indictment as multiplicitous; (2) counsel did not object at trial orsentencing to the failure of the indictment to set forth a specific drug type and quantity; (3) counsel did not effectively object to defendant's career offender sentence enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 4B1.1; and (4) counsel did not raise the above issues on appeal. Id. On May 22, 2015, the Court overruled defendant's Section 2255 motion. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #889). Defendant appealed. On October 9, 2015, the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See Order Denying Certificate Of Appealability (Doc. #897).

On May 27, 2016 defendant filed his second Section 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Motion To Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #914). On May 17, 2017, the Court dismissed defendant's motion because United States v. Beckles, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), precluded his claim under Johnson. Order (Doc. #944).

On November 27, 2017, defendant filed a Motion Pursuant To Rule 60(b) (Doc. #950), which asked the Court to set aside its order denying his initial Section 2255 motion. Defendant asserted that he was entitled to relief because (1) an "inmate legal assistant" provided ineffective assistance on his first habeas claim; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to effectively object to his sentence enhancements based on lack of particularized findings; (3) the Court erred by allowing the jury to view transcripts that were not admitted into evidence during deliberations; and (4) the Court erred by admitting voice identification testimony with questionable credibility. See generally id. at 5-11. On December 20, 2017, the Court dismissed defendant's Rule 60(b) motion, which the Court construed as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #952). Defendant appealed. On March 21, 2018, the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See Order Denying Certificate Of Appealability (Doc. #963).

On April 23, 2018, defendant filed a Motion To Correct/Modification Of Illegal Sentence Or Review Of A Sentence (Doc. #968), which the Court construed as a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because (1) he did not propose a jury instruction which required the jury to specifically find drug type and quantity and (2) he did not object to defendant's enhanced sentence based on drug type and quantity. See id. at 1-2. Defendant also argued that the Court erred because it did not instruct the jury to specifically find drug type and quantity and it sentenced him beyond the statutory penalty for the offense of conviction. See id. On April 30, 2018, the Court dismissed defendant's motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #968).

On May 10, 2018, defendant filed a pro se Motion To Modify Term Of Imprisonment Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Citing Amendment 750 And Amendment 782 To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. #971). On June 4, 2018, the Court dismissed defendant's motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #972).

On June 12, 2018, in the Central District of California, defendant filed a Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241) (Doc. #977). Because defendant's petition asserted claims that are cognizable only under Section 2255, Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams of the Central District of California transferred defendant's Section 2241 petition to this Court. See Order Transferring Action To The...